![]() |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3052892)
He seems to be going out on a limb... if things pick up, he wins. If they don't it was probably BK anyway.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3052743)
...Even so, if you look at the furloughing that AA and UAL will have to do...
And how many is that exactly? |
Originally Posted by Notarealpilot
(Post 3052720)
You’re forgetting the fact the big 3 will be significantly smaller on the other side of this. Someone will be there to take advantage.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog (according toLabDad06) ...Even so, if you look at the furloughing that AA and UAL will have to do.
Originally Posted by LabDad06
(Post 3053896)
And how many is that exactly?
Well why don’t we provide the ACCURATE quote and I will respond... Even so, if you look at the furloughing that AA and UAL will have to do if international flying doesn’t come back promptly Not so, UAL, Delta, and AA. This makes it a double whammy for the Big Three, made worse by the fact that their most senior personnel are flying the routes that are likely to take the longest coming back. Now you can be as sarcastic as you desire demanding EXACT numbers which of course I’m sure even you are aware are not possible to provide without knowing EXACTLY how quick international flying is coming back and EXACTLY how many senior people can be induced to accept early retirement, so PRECISE quantification is anybody’s guess. Notwithstanding that, anyone with an appreciation of queuing theory, type ratings, and how the seniority system will drive a training cascade For carriers with multiple type ratings will realize the QUALITATIVE differences affecting the different carriers, even if they are unable to give EXACT numbers. Certainly some of the Big Three management realize this as they make efforts to retire fleet types early and pare their number of fleet types, but while that may be helpful, unless both Domestic and International flying return promptly it will still likely force them to move senior pilots from one type rating to another with the attendant training costs and downtime that requires in a far more costly manner than the single-type carriers who need to merely furlough their most junior people and downgrade their most junior captains.. Or don’t you see that? |
You dramatically overestimate training costs. Most of the cost of training is fixed and already paid for at the major airlines. The principle cost is loss of productivity while a pilot is off the line training. That is a non issue now with a surplus of pilots.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3053954)
Well why don’t we provide the ACCURATE quote and I will respond...
EXACTLY how many furloughs AA and UAL will have to do is totally dependent upon the speed with which both Domestic and International flying returns and it is generally assumed that international flying will be the slowest to return. You will note that for any of the LCC/ULCC carriers, domestic flying will also have to return for them to avoid furloughs, but even with NKs Central America flights, none of the LCC/ULCC carriers are highly dependent on International flying. Not so, UAL, Delta, and AA. This makes it a double whammy for the Big Three, made worse by the fact that their most senior personnel are flying the routes that are likely to take the longest coming back. Now you can be as sarcastic as you desire demanding EXACT numbers which of course I’m sure even you are aware are not possible to provide without knowing EXACTLY how quick international flying is coming back and EXACTLY how many senior people can be induced to accept early retirement, so PRECISE quantification is anybody’s guess. Notwithstanding that, anyone with an appreciation of queuing theory, type ratings, and how the seniority system will drive a training cascade For carriers with multiple type ratings will realize the QUALITATIVE differences affecting the different carriers, even if they are unable to give EXACT numbers. Certainly some of the Big Three management realize this as they make efforts to retire fleet types early and pare their number of fleet types, but while that may be helpful, unless both Domestic and International flying return promptly it will still likely force them to move senior pilots from one type rating to another with the attendant training costs and downtime that requires in a far more costly manner than the single-type carriers who need to merely furlough their most junior people and downgrade their most junior captains.. Or don’t you see that? See the"…", that means there is more to follow. I did not put a period at the end as if that were the end of your statement, like you did at the end of my quote. But anyway, that was a whole lot you said, when you could simply say, "I don't know." Very simple thing to do. And accurate. And nobody will fault you for it because guess what, NOBODY KNOWS! I hate to do the fellow furloughed CPZ crime, but you seem to be a self proclaimed expert on here when the reality is, you don't know. I don't either. You made a statement, can't back it up, then go talking out your ass trying to cover that. Or don't you see that? |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3053941)
The size of the big 3 will be smaller because demand will be less. They will ramp right up to pre coved levels if demand returns.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3053957)
You dramatically overestimate training costs. Most of the cost of training is fixed and already paid for at the major airlines. The principle cost is loss of productivity while a pilot is off the line training. That is a non issue now with a surplus of pilots.
|
Originally Posted by LabDad06
(Post 3053974)
Well why don’t we provide the ACCURATE quote and I will respond...
See the"…", that means there is more to follow. I did not put a period at the end as if that were the end of your statement, like you did at the end of my quote. But anyway, that was a whole lot you said, when you could simply say, "I don't know." Very simple thing to do. And accurate. And nobody will fault you for it because guess what, NOBODY KNOWS! I hate to do the fellow furloughed CPZ crime, but you seem to be a self proclaimed expert on here when the reality is, you don't know. I don't either. You made a statement, can't back it up, then go talking out your ass trying to cover that. Or don't you see that? The statement I MADE, I backed up perfectly well. The truncated version you pretended I made was your own straw man, which I think MOST people see, even if you do not. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3053957)
You dramatically overestimate training costs. Most of the cost of training is fixed and already paid for at the major airlines.
I simply pointed out that training involving new type-ratings and multiple displacements due to furloughs in a variety of types is more expensive than simple junior pilot furloughs and downgrade of junior captains into the right seat in an airline with a single fleet type, and it is. And a cascade of training requirements caused by multiple displacements is NOT covered by the usual training overhead.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3053957)
The principle cost is loss of productivity while a pilot is off the line training.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3053957)
That is a non issue now with a surplus of pilots.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:05 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands